 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Brooks v. State, No. CR 05-414,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's nunc pro tunc order seeking an order that his Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition was timely filed was proper where the inmate did not take issue with what was spoken by the trial court; he contended that the trial court should have spoken when it did not. If there was an error to correct, the error was not in the trial court.
|
|||||
| Fryar v. Touchstone Physical Therapy, Inc., No. 05-394,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where expert doctor's affidavit did not state with any reasonable degree of medical certainty that patient's injuries were proximately caused by physical therapist's alleged negligence, the affidavit did not create a material issue of fact on question of proximate cause, and court's grant of summary judgment in favor of therapist was not in error.
|
|||||
| Graham v. State, No. CR05-1018,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss and her conviction in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-221 because there was evidence that defendant knew her son was being abused by her husband and that she did nothing to prevent it.
|
|||||
| Helena Daily World v. Simes, No. 05-146,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court granted a newspaper's petition for a writ of certiorari directing a judge to dissolve an injunction that prevented the newspaper from reporting testimony given in open court in a case involving a dispute between a mayor and a city council where the restraining order was too broad and was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the press.
|
|||||
| Hess v. State, No. CR 05-164,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order denying petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, which was filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -207 (Supp. 2003), was upheld because in light of petitioner's failure to place his identity at issue, he did not meet the threshold requirements of § 16-112-202(b)(1) to seek DNA testing.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Crelia, No. 05-660,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants because when the evidence was reviewed in light most favorable to plaintiff, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant intended to manipulate the judicial system, such that judicial estoppel would not apply.
|
|||||
| McClain v. State, No. CR 05-1329,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nelson v. State, No. CR 05-1045,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug convictions were proper where the supreme court did not address the merits of the sufficiency argument because his directed-verdict motion, under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c), was not preserved for review. He raised specific arguments on appeal that were not raised at the trial court level.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, No. CR 05-314,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of the inmate's appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was proper where it was untimely because it was filed 105 days after the date of the judgment, instead of within the 90 days required under the rule.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
